Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,690   Posts: 1,548,827   Online: 1050
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53
  1. #31
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    I agree but many Indie Production could afford film and choose Digital because they (director, etc..) believe or more likely the Producers believe they can't afford it, Das Leben der Anderen had a Budget of approx 2 Million and they were able to go Anamorphic and that's in Europe where Filmmaking is actually more expensive then in the US and there are quiet a few examples out there that show that you can use film for smaller Budget movies. The Red and also the Alexa Mafia as well as film schools are also sprouting a lot of anti film propaganda imo. Using short ends, not using the newest and coolest film cameras (not Arricam but instead an Arri BL2 with 2 perf mod Older Superspeeds or Standards instead of Master and Ultra Primes not to forget Ultra 16mm instead of 35mm) and a lot of indies could afford shooting film. Even for movies with a 250000 $ Budget film is still a viable choice.

    I also have to say that the quality of Indie movies these days is going down faster than the Quality of Big Hollywood Productions the imo failed democratization of Filmmaking trough DV Cameras is mostly to blame for it in the past you had to invest in a movie nowadays everyone with a DV believes himself to be the next Kubrick the movies made this way lack any kind of production value and look like what they are cheap.
    I agree to a point, I don't agree that a $250,000 they could use film. I've been on $2,000,000 budget films where they were shooting on a Canon 5D II and that was because they could afford to get more footage, lens options, and tighter shots with it and less expensive lighting, over a traditional film camera. (I'm an actor also so this was what the crew told me, I didn't see the financial sheets).

    If I were to shoot a film, and I could afford film, I would try to use as much Kodak XX as I could get away with

    If I could have it specially made in 70mm, that would be even better! I would be the the George Lucas of B&W haha.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Kodak film/cameras (and Polaroid) for sale in the souvenir shop of the Wright Brothers Nation Monument, Kill Devil, NC.

    Attachment 72384
    As I travel around the souvenir shops in the area, I see lots of the Polaroid single use cameras but just those 2 Kodak single use cameras. I didn't even know there were Polaroid single use camera (the box simply says 400 speed color negative film). As far as the photographers I've seen in the area, most are using smart phones, a few were using dcameras and as far as I could tell there were no film shooters; not even the single use film shooters. Such is the consumer market today.

  3. #33
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I agree to a point, I don't agree that a $250,000 they could use film. I've been on $2,000,000 budget films where they were shooting on a Canon 5D II and that was because they could afford to get more footage, lens options, and tighter shots with it and less expensive lighting, over a traditional film camera. (I'm an actor also so this was what the crew told me, I didn't see the financial sheets).

    If I were to shoot a film, and I could afford film, I would try to use as much Kodak XX as I could get away with

    If I could have it specially made in 70mm, that would be even better! I would be the the George Lucas of B&W haha.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    I agree it's difficult to make a movie on film on less than a 2 Mio Dollar Budget but it's doable using a Canon 5DII as A camera for a 2 Mio Budget Movie is something I don't get. Some of the greatest Movies were shot with a single lens or very few lenses The Last Picture show only used one lens Cititzen Kane only used a few lenses. Richard Boddington a Canadian Director Producer shot all his films except his last one on film and he usually has a below 2 Mio Dollar Budget. I also fully agree with you about the Kodak XX thing

  4. #34
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    I was just listening to an article on Oregon Public Radio yesterday called "Digital or Die". First run theaters are being forced to switch over to digital projection by Hollywood. They are phasing out movies being shot on film. They want to be able to ship movies on a small hard drive for digital projection instead of paying the cost of shipping several large cans of film not to mention the expense of making all the film duplicates.
    Printed on film! Not shot on film! Yes I realize there's some transition going on in the latter but not nearly at the rate the former is.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #35
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by erikg View Post
    Huh?
    My ultimate dream thread here is a flame war between Mustafa and sonofsand.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  6. #36
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,662
    Images
    14
    If we could bring Jorge out of the shadows I think Mustafa could give him a run for his money.

    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    My ultimate dream thread here is a flame war between Mustafa and sonofsand.

  7. #37
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    I agree it's difficult to make a movie on film on less than a 2 Mio Dollar Budget but it's doable using a Canon 5DII as A camera for a 2 Mio Budget Movie is something I don't get. Some of the greatest Movies were shot with a single lens or very few lenses The Last Picture show only used one lens Cititzen Kane only used a few lenses. Richard Boddington a Canadian Director Producer shot all his films except his last one on film and he usually has a below 2 Mio Dollar Budget. I also fully agree with you about the Kodak XX thing
    That was a while ago, inflation, growing actor costs, probably that movie in today's dollars would be about 7-8 million.... Way different level.

    The 5D isn't bad, the new 5D C (C for Cinema) shoots in 4K which is like double 1080i or whatever. It still shoots stills but is designed for movies, and costs double, but for 4K is still worth it and doable on a 2 mil budget.

    Anyway this is digi talk, I just was explaining my comment more.

    Shooting on XX does cost less than color though, because with B&W you don't have to have as much light to make a scene look good and don't have to worry about color temperature so you can use whatever light is available even fluorescents and not have to change them out for tungsten fluorescents etc.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #38
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    That was a while ago, inflation, growing actor costs, probably that movie in today's dollars would be about 7-8 million.... Way different level.

    The 5D isn't bad, the new 5D C (C for Cinema) shoots in 4K which is like double 1080i or whatever. It still shoots stills but is designed for movies, and costs double, but for 4K is still worth it and doable on a 2 mil budget.

    Anyway this is digi talk, I just was explaining my comment more.

    Shooting on XX does cost less than color though, because with B&W you don't have to have as much light to make a scene look good and don't have to worry about color temperature so you can use whatever light is available even fluorescents and not have to change them out for tungsten fluorescents etc.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    The problem with shooting with Super XX is that you won't get distribution since real B/W is something the audience and the cinemas in some markets won't accept. This was the reason that the girl on the bridge was shot in color and converted in post,the Artist was shot in color for convenience sake though. There goes our dream

  9. #39
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    The problem with shooting with Super XX is that you won't get distribution since real B/W is something the audience and the cinemas in some markets won't accept. This was the reason that the girl on the bridge was shot in color and converted in post,the Artist was shot in color for convenience sake though. There goes our dream
    The original Clerks was shot in B&W for lighting and cost reasons, a budget of $20,000-$30,000 something like that, however once shot, it was given about 200,000 to get edited by... I think it was Miramax... Something like that, or for over $3,000,000 in the box office, bit big for the box office but huge for a $30,000 movie, but then, it was a cult classic and has done much better on VHS/DVD sales etc, so it's made much more.

    Anyway, again, it takes a RARE film to be shot in B&W and make it... Joss Whedon's interpretation of "Much Ado About Nothing" was just in box offices (limited distribution) and did about $3,000,000 and was shot in B&W BUT digital B&W on a RED camera and Canon 7D

    Alas if Joss had only done it on Kodak XX


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #40
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    The original Clerks was shot in B&W for lighting and cost reasons, a budget of $20,000-$30,000 something like that, however once shot, it was given about 200,000 to get edited by... I think it was Miramax... Something like that, or for over $3,000,000 in the box office, bit big for the box office but huge for a $30,000 movie, but then, it was a cult classic and has done much better on VHS/DVD sales etc, so it's made much more.

    Anyway, again, it takes a RARE film to be shot in B&W and make it... Joss Whedon's interpretation of "Much Ado About Nothing" was just in box offices (limited distribution) and did about $3,000,000 and was shot in B&W BUT digital B&W on a RED camera and Canon 7D

    Alas if Joss had only done it on Kodak XX


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    I am a huge Kevin Smith fan and weirdly enough whenever he gets a for him Big Budget the movies are not as good as his lower Budget stuff. I believe that a lot of DoP would give their right arm to shoot in real B/W unfortunately the Audience is mostly monochromophobic, good example is the Artist the Audience especially in the US was complaining about the lack of dialogue and color after watching a movie that was advertised as being a silent movie and B/W (digital unfortunately)

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin